Now, Sir, let us ascend from words to things. Why make another reference? Is it that it may find verbal place on your record that this bill was duly referred and duly reported? That is the only reason I can imagine; for the bill in its substance is well known to every Senator, and, I may add, is well known to every lawyer in the country. It has been discussed here again and again, day after day, and has been modified after discussion; and you now have the result of all the discussion and the modification. It is well known. It is familiar to the country. It has received the approbation of those who are most interested in it. It has been prayed for by petitioners without number. It has been commended at public meetings with an earnestness and an enthusiasm almost without parallel. MR. EDMUNDS. May I ask the Senator a question? MR. SUMNER. Certainly. MR. EDMUNDS. I should like to ask my friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, (as he is now speaking of the character of the bill, which I did not care to refer to particularly,) where the jury is summoned, and a man should happen to be convicted of murder or any other crime under the State law, would it, or not, set aside the verdict? MR. SUMNER. The Senator will pardon me. I had not intended to touch this branch of the debate. MR. EDMUNDS. I merely wish to ask him what he understands to be the character of the fourth section, supposing we pass it just as it stands, and supposing a jury happens to be summoned contrary to the provisions of the fourth section, but in accordance with the law of the State. MR. SUMNER. The effect of the violation of the law in that respect need not be considered. It is sufficient that this section provides a penalty against those who violate the law; such is its simple object. MR. EDMUNDS. Ah! but let me ask my friend, does it not also provide what shall constitute a lawful jury? MR. SUMNER. Very well,--and should it not so provide? MR. EDMUNDS. Very well,--but my question is, What would be the effect upon the trial of an indictment found by a grand jury not composed in conformity to this motion? MR. SUMNER. I will not presume to pronounce an opinion on that question. It is sufficient for me that the section is clear and explicit in imposing a penalty upon the party making the exclusion, and that is all the bill proposes. The other consequences may be, will be, for the determination of the courts. The question belongs to them; I doubt if it belongs to us. But the bill is open to amendment. Let the Senator move such as he thinks the case requires: I shall welcome it.